Constitutional solutions and beyond

By Bhim Rawal

The country is reeling under the weight of uncertainty and rampant violence while the existing multiparty system of government is entering its13th year after its restoration. On this occasion, the Nepalese people have not been able to celebrate the 13th anniversary of the multiparty system with any new zeal but are forced to look back into lacuna and mistakes committed during the past 12 years. The demand of close scrutiny of the present system and the style of the governance is ever increasing from all corners of the Nepalese society. It has virtual implications on the question of amendment to the Constitution of Nepal too. Both of the logic and arguments for or against the constitutional amendment ultimately seek some sort of alterations in the existing state functioning and emphasize to finding out an effective solution to the Maoist rebellion. No one has denied that the country is in a serious crisis, and a search for an appropriate way to get out of this has been an imperative for the very survival of the country. Only the approaches and orientation vary.

While dwelling on the various approaches and outlooks about the present character of the problems and the possible steps for their resolution, one should not forget the causes of the present imbroglio. Every aspect of the present crisis and reasons of widespread violence and destruction spearheaded by the Maoist rebels should be deeply analyzed. Permanent solution to the existing problems faced by the country is not possible without uprooting the roots of growing social contradictions and unrest that appeared in the form of the Maoist "People’s War". The Maoist rebellion is of course a visible outburst of a disease that needs proper treatment. At the same time, an appropriate diagnosis of the disease and in-depth analysis of metamorphosis of the armed rebellion is necessary. Escapism and superficial approach would not contribute to crack the hard nuts and provide any sense of direction in a stormy dusk. The country and people are warily awaiting bold, objective and democratic but well-thought steps to bail out themselves from the present crisis. Then what are the available alternatives? One must be categorical and honest while dealing with this pressing question. Do we need structural changes both in the form and functioning of state and system of political representation? Do the country and people seek behavioral changes on the part of political parties and their leaders ? Is there a necessity of shift both in policy and programmes of the state and government to address people’s grievances? How far the present political system and its helmsmen are resilient to adjust extra-constitutional demands put forth by the Maoists ? Or should the country search for possible alternatives to accommodate the Maoists ? What will be such alternatives and how the Maoists rebels will respond? Can the optimum use of force bring the Maoists under control, and the country be able to afford a protracted war? These are few questions seeking concrete answers both from the government and other responsible political circles. Public utterances made by any organization, institution or person with ulterior motives or vested interests have no meaning for solving the existing problems but instead they can further aggravate them. Tactics of fishing in troubled waters may only contribute to creating an environment for neither fish nor fowl. Taking all these factors in consideration, the Main Opposition - CPN (UML) has put forward a proposal for constitution amendment, wide ranging political, economic and social reforms. The objective behind this proposal is to address the people’s grievances and demands on the one hand and to pave the way for opening up all avenues in search of alternatives on the other. It may also pressurize the Maoists to reconsider their stance and tempt them to utilize the liberal framework and mechanism provided through the constitutional amendment and wide ranging reforms. The state administrative and military endeavors also acquire much flesh in their bones by implementing the scheme of above mentioned amendment and reforms. This is a pragmatic approach at the present complicated situation.

As far as the question of election for the constituent assembly is concerned, the propagators of this idea have not been able to put forward its details. Except the Maoists, who have clearly adopted the election of constituent assembly as an important mechanism for achieving a "New Democratic People’s Republic", all rightist advocates of the constituent assembly- may he be the Home Minister, the former Chief Justice or the Speaker of the House- have failed to elaborate their propagation. People are confused that whether these persons support the Maoist approach of the constituent assembly in toto or they are just playing a sinister game. They are tight-lipped about the fate of the present constitutional monarchy, constitution, parliament, role of political parties and exercise of state power till the election of the constituent assembly and promulgation of the new constitution. Why don’t they answer all these queries with all sincerity if they really want the constituent assembly? As far as the CPN (UML) is concerned, it is open to all practicable democratic alternatives and proposals aimed at solving the crises faced by the country at the moment. Its proposal is not aimed at making further inroads to the government. The CPN (UML) is neither frightened to go among the people on any issue nor adamant in seeking alternatives. It is only seriously thoughtful to the present national and international political scenario and balance of political forces. This kind of calculation can neither be termed as opportunism nor subjectivism. To be precise and objective, the people haunted by their status quoits preoccupation and traditional obsessions do not believe in a democratic way out and place trust on autocratic forms of actions. The rationale and truth of this argument has been established by these people themselves by making ambiguous and contradictory statements.

Now the country is polarized into two camps from the viewpoint of politics of violence and peaceful competition. Otherwise choice is not available to any one. In this situation the Maoist’s stand for the constituent assembly backed by the idea of protracted armed struggle needs no further explanation. However, the public utterances of some big-headed people, who are supposedly staunch supporters of the constitution, are intriguing and difficult to understand. When any one looks into the Constitution for possible answers, the eyes stop at Article 116. It provides all authorities to the parliament to introduce a Bill, to amend and /or repeal any Article of the Constitution and to pass it by a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present. The Bill thus passed is submitted to His Majesty the King for assent and he may, within thirty days from the date of submission, either grant assent to such Bill or send the Bill back for reconsideration with his message to the House, where the Bill originated. A Bill sent back by the King is reconsidered by both the Houses of Parliament, and if resubmitted to His Majesty for assent, he shall grant assent within thirty days. At the same time the Directive Principle of the State under Article 24 also equally draws attention. Its clause (1) is suffice to be quoted here, which reads, "It shall be the chief objective of the State to promote conditions of welfare on the basis of the principles of an open society, by establishing a just system in all aspects of national life, including social, economic and political, while at the same time the protection of the lives, property and liberty of the people." These constitutional provisions and directives should provide insights to all for possible solutions to the problems. Is it suitable for the "admirers and champions" of the principles of the rule of law and democracy to ignore those constitutional arrangements ? If these are not sufficient, why one should not stand for amendments and reforms ? If any one thinks the present constitutional arrangements and provisions are too insufficient then why does not one spell out the magic and mystery of the ‘extra-constitutional’ scheme? Time is running out and fast. And the country can no more wait for just listening to fruitless arguments. It is time for action.

( The author is with the CPN -UML)

Rupee ripple

Nothing makes more wave than Rupee, so what is new about ‘Rupee ripple’, one might be tempted to wonder. But take heart friends, this is one groundbreaking effort to start an astonishingly new movement. Thanks to the great humorist Stephen Leacock, who in his story "My Lost Dollar" came up with this amazing idea to start a "Back to Honesty movement", for paying all those odd dollars that have been borrowed in the moments of expansion. Inspired by him, I propose another version of the movement, one for paying all those odd ‘rupees’ that have remained unpaid on the simple pretext of not having a change!

It is not uncommon these days for one to be refused his/her rightful change of a rupee or two. Be it a shopkeeper or a cabdriver, the excuse is the same "Chanchun chhaina" (meaning, no change!). This is their best defence against that expectant gaze. Being too decent one seldom presses further. But the wonder of the thing is when the same cult becomes offensive if you ever pay them a ‘mohar’ (50 paisa) less.

Recently, I was at a Petrol station to refuel my two-wheeler. "4 litres", I said, while making calculations in the back of my mind. Not that I am one of those who need to count their fingers when adding up to five, but I happen to be one of the lesser mortals who don’t have much to boast about in terms of their pocket size. I handed out two crisp hundred "rupee" notes, at the same time wishing for the petrol to be less expensive. If wishes were horses commuters would surely ride them. Only the twist in the age-old adage would leave ‘Nepal Oil Corporation’ aghast!

I received the change with eager hands while pushing aside the thoughts of my dwindling fund. I promptly counted the money only to realise that it was a rupee less. Not belonging to the modest ilk (those too shy to claim their change), I bellowed, "Ek rupiya khoi"? To this he rattled off the magic mantra "chanchun chhaina".

I was exasperated by this excuse. He stared at me with disbelief when I refused to budge without getting the change. Then he disappeared for a brief second. A smile lit up my face with the reappearance of the lad who I assumed had gone to fetch the change. No sooner had my lips stretched in an upper curve that I was forced into a straight face again. I was furious that the scoundrel hadn’t brought my rupee. Sensing my fury he hurriedly handed me a note in order to avoid a scene. And I left the petrol pump, a happy girl having exacted my fair share!

Back home as I was relating the tale of my success, I dug in my pocket in order to display the prized one rupee. Lo, instead of a one-rupee note I found a soiled two-rupee note. It sunk in immediately that the bloke at the petrol pump had given an extra rupee in his attempt to get rid of a fuming motorist (it’s only motors that they are apt at handling!).

I wondered if the extra rupee was a triumph for all those naïve people who had been refused their change. Immediately I was reminded, "honesty is the best policy". I resolved to return one odd rupee and hence was born a brainchild, the "Back to Honesty Movement".

On returning the much- talked "rupee" to a shell-shocked chap of the same eventful petrol-pump, I realised the need to spread awareness about this honesty movement. There could not be better publicity stunt than
to ask few of our political bigwigs to endorse our campaign. Though it’ll require them to be
honest for a "change" (pun intended) they can’t refuse their (only) chance to build a positive public image.

Money talk

By JUG suraiya

The other day at a get-together a young chap handed me his business card which prominently displayed his contact number. I read out the numerals: 223788. "I didn’t know that Delhi has a 223 telephone exchange," I remarked in surprise. "It doesn’t" replied the young chap: "That’s not my telephone number; that’s my monthly salary statement. Pre-tax, of course," he added apologetically and pushed off to dole out more of his cards, leaving me with a penny for my thoughts. Pre-tax, of course.

Way back in the year dot when I got my first job, employers hadn’t got around to giving salaries; what they dispensed instead were emoluments. When I first heard the term, an emolument sounded to me like something you administered with a spoon to infants to stop them grizzling from the gripes.

Which in a sense is exactly what emoluments were, when you come to think of it.

Management took emoluments very seriously. When I was given my appointment letter I was told that emoluments were a confidential pact, a sacred covenant, between the employee and the employed, and represented a relationship akin to that between priest and penitent, doctor and patient. I was informed that an officer and a gentleman — an arcane entity in the avatar of which I had considerable difficulty recognising myself — did not noise his emoluments to the world at large. You could talk about your political convictions, your criminal record, your marital problems, your golf handicap or your piles if you wanted to; you could confess to alcoholism, dope addiction and the galloping lunacy that ran in the family.

But you never, ever — upon pain of committing the ultimate sin of vulgarity— talked about your emoluments. There was a good reason for this. For emoluments — or my emoluments, at least — partook of the nature of a metaphysical concept rather than a more material manifestation accessible to such blunt instruments of negotiation as the five senses and pay-to-self-or-bearer cheques drawn towards the end of the month. This was repeatedly brought home to me by my bank manager, a droll fellow with a misplaced sense of levity. "I see you’ve issued yet another cheque!" he’d guffaw over the phone, like it was the most side-splitting thing he’d heard of since bank nationalisation. "I hope there’s enough of a balance...." I’d begin, only to be cut short by a renewed eruption of hilarity. "Balance!" the man would hoot, sounding positively hysterical by now. Balances apparently were even more rib-tickling than bank nationalisation, and on a par with the cutting off of privy purses. "He wants to know his balance!" I’d hear him broadcast to his cohorts at the other end of the line, an anno! uncement greeted with peals of manic mirth. I’d hang up and clout the payphone, in the hope it would disorge the coin I’d put into it. But like my cheques, that ploy too seldom worked.

Somewhere along the line between bounced cheques and unregurgitated coins someone devised salaries. Or maybe they devised MBAs first, who in turn gave birth to salaries. Whatever the chicken-or-egg order of precedence, unspeakable emoluments gave way to only too speakable salaries and soon social conversation began to sound like a Dutch auction: "My eldest one, Rohit, only now he has passed his MBA no, and already he is getting offers of ten-ten thousand a month and just he is 24!" would bid a proud mother.

"Oh-ho!" would counter another. "What is ten thousand after all in this day and age? My Sunil is joining First City at twelve thousand a month, plus house and car, and hardly he is 22, no doubt."

Leaving them to compare notes about their respective progeny’s pay packets and juvenility, I’d potter off to see if the man behind the bar could be prevailed upon to offer another libation to a non-MBA no doubt, hardly with zero prospects, after all in this day and age.

Since then we’ve had liberalisation, globalisation, a growing influx of multinationals and the concurrent demand by the salaried classes for a level paying field. Money no longer talks; it doesn’t have to,
what with so many doing all the talking for and
about it.

I told a friend about the chap with the visiting scorecard inscribed with what only his Income Tax Officer should have known for sure. My friend didn’t seem surprised. "IC?" he remarked casually. "I’m glad you see; I’m afraid I don’t," I confessed. "No," he corrected. "Not I see as in I see, but IC as in Indian currency. Was the chap quoting his going rate in desi rupees, American dollars, pounds sterling, Swiss francs, German DM, Danish kroners, South African rand, Austrian schillings, Japanese yen, Italian lire, Greek drachmas, Bangladeshi taka, Somalian food stamps, what?"

"I didn’t know we had a supermarket of salaries," I said. "Sure we do," replied the other. It’s not just ice-cream that comes in 32 flavours now — so do pay-packets. Or compensation packages, as they prefer to be called. All you do is pick your flavour of the month."But who are all these people who command these triple-scoop compensation packages?" I asked. "High court judges? ITC chairmen? Delhi’s jarru-pocha women?" "Nothing quite so exalted," my mentor assured me. "The people I’m talking about are merely into marketing." "Marketing what?" I asked.

"They’re into the marketing of marketing," was the reply.

My friend explained to me that the market had once been a place where commodities were bought and sold. Thanks to increasing competition, commodities evolved into brand images; concepts began to replace mere corporeal matter. And the ultimate marketing concept became the concept of marketing the marketing of concept. "I bet you can’t say that while walking on a straight line," I said.

"Anyway, how does all that add up to seven-figure salaries, plus perks?"

"Simple," said the other. "It’s called value addition, the key element in marketing. The more you pay marketing executives, the more value you add to marketing , and the more value you add to marketing..." "The more you can pay your marketing bods?" I suggested.

"Now you’re getting it," said the other. "So the really top salaries are commanded by those whose sole qualification is that they’re the most expensive one can employ?" I asked. "No", corrected the other. "The really top salaries are commanded by those whose sole qualification is that they’re so expensive that no one can employ them: in order to be employed, they’d have to take a salary cut, which of course means they’re no longer worth employing. That’s the challenge of change."

"I know about that particular challenge," I chipped in. "Really?" said the other, surprised. "How come?" "Because when I finally pack up, career-wise, that’s how I’ll sum it up in three words." I said. "What’s that?" he asked.

"Keep the change," I said, and walked away.